I do not know. But shooting in the dark, I think Vertigo will continue in the top, Roger Ebert said that there comes a time when voters tired of always vote in the same film, Kane is 50 years at the top, many people who voted for him have died, soon the new voters are younger people who definitely will vote in the films of the decade 60-70. Leaving the old ones without vote. Also the fact that Hitchcock is british magazine and always cherish the directors of his country. I think in the next two editions, Apocalypse Now will grow, as well as the latest movies, but I see Apocalypse Now as the major listed among the latest movies. The Godfather was away but I see still standing reputation. Perhaps the two films in the top 20 maybe. Apocalypse Now was also well regarded among the directors.
I also assume that: 2001 may soon challenge Kane and Vertigo. Rules of the Game can drop 6-8 maybe. Tokyo Story and Sunrise could be just moments, I think the latter may fall out. Overall it is. Vertigo is now the king, Kane does not think back to the top soon, same thing happen to AFI The Godfather will replace Kane, 2017 or 2027, but is likely.
But one of the reasons why I think Vertigo remain in the top is the amount of votes.
1982 to 1992 he was on the rise but not a threat to Kane. In 2002 he came in dethroning 2 Rules of Game and The Godfather. 45 votes against 41. It was expected that this list he overcame equaled or Kane, but he was not exceeded by 5-10 votes were 34 votes, and a rise like the Vertigo, now that will not stop. Again kicking in the dark: I think 2022 will look like this:
Ok, so it isn't the art of his Ring itself, but rather his manner of which he expresses it that you dislike. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Sorry for the confusion, but when you threw around words like "pompous", "posturing" & "so histrionic and dry" I was getting the impression that you thought his Ring was an entirely self-serving and pretentious work of art (since art appreciation is subjective, I wouldn't object to your right to say that... though I definitely wouldn't agree with you!). As for the philosophical implications of his libretto. Let me just state that I evaluate music on purely musical grounds. No matter how involved or intertwined a written text maybe with a certain work of music, I still consider them distinctly separate realms of art. I realize how much this runs contrary to Wagner's principle of Gesamtkunstwerk. Oh well. I guess I'm not a true Wagnerite after all!
B-b-but I did not say anything about masking artistic depth, or sincerity, or any resemblance of such a statement. I said the manner, the style, the actual sounds that I hear are what I often find problematic, not the creative energy at work. The endless monumental tilt gets dull. Furthermore, I did not mention psychology (a dubious barometer for any artwork in any case, it would be asinine to dismiss The Illiad on such grounds). The dull philosophical (not, let me reiterate, sonic) writing is the only non-musical criticism I made, and it is based on the libretto (admittedly I have only seen the first three installments so the final ones may be different). Let me lastly, perhaps pedantocally, affirm that I am making no accusations, but simply personal observations. I accept Wagner was brilliant without a doubt--Tristan und Isolde is a favorite--but after spending some time with The Ring I've found it is not, as a whole, suited to my taste, although I think it hosts some very successful parts (I failed to mention the Immolation earlier and a good number of instrumental passages).
I initially thought you were alluding to a certain "monstrousness" in his aesthetic that many people find repellent. Though I'm not sure if I'd agree, there is an argument for this stance. Now I see you're just describing how overwrought, pompous and distasteful you find his Ring and in this case I simply cannot relate to you. The Ring may be intoxicatingly grandiose in nature, but none of it strikes me as histrionic. Nor do I feel that any of it is some sort of hollow facade to disguise some sort of lack of artistic sincerity and depth and that this music was, for the most part, self-glorifying. You accuse Wagner of philosophical posturing yet I find nothing pretentious about his Ring for it is endless in psychological depth - Wagner, along with Schopenhauer, has even been described by many scholars to be a precursor to Sigmond Frued. Bryan Magee writes "Wagner knew he was making the orchestra express the world of primitive, unbridled inchoate feeling below the level of conscious awareness." Friedrich Nietzsche writes "He knows of a chord which expresses those secret and weird midnight hours of the soul, when cause and effect seem to have fallen asunder." David Duball writes "Wagner brought the voice, in combination with the orchestra, to an undreamed-of height of expression. In merging his musical being with the timeless power of myth, Wagner tapped into repressed and unconscious aspects of the psyche. He felt no surprise that his music had the power to unhinge mentally unstable people, touching an exposed nerve." None of these descriptions gives one the impression of a composer who merely creates music with philosophical and psychological leanings as a way to draw attention to himself. However, the intensity and grandiloquence of the ring, for which you personally find off-putting, cannot be denied. But if you're put off by these qualities then, at this point, I think we can safely say it's just a matter of taste and that the Ring simply isn't for you.
You've misunderstood me completely. When I say The Ring is uneven I am not referring to dramatic intensity or narrative events. To cite the already given example of The Ride of the Valkyries--such a section has no lack of intensity or narrative thrust but it strikes me as completely overwrought and pompous. The problem for me is The Ring is inconsistently engaging (It, personally, contradicts what Henry James wrote of as the only reasonable expectation we can have of art: that it be interesting). Regardless of the enormous artistic power at work many passages fail to cast any sort of hold on me. They can be so histrionic and dry. The manner of the music is the issue. So, to the contrary, I think less intense, less bombast, less philosophical posturing and grandiloquence may appeal to me more. But, of course, then it would no longer be The Ring.
I completely sympathize with the difficulties involved with sustaining an epic, even Milton struggled, but at the end of the day I receive great pleasure from only some of the music.
You may enjoy reading George Bernard Shaw's The Perfect Wagnerite. I found it amusing... It's clear there was a falling off in his critical facilities. Despite a distaste for Brahms his very early writing on music he was remarkably perceptive. I can't find it now, but his reading of "To be or not to be" is a particularly enjoyable attack on musicologists.
I can relate to your experience. There is a clear gap in my appreciation of Bartók's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta and his 2nd violin concerto, but when I get down to specifics the lines begin to blur. And the more I focus on trying to define those lines the more I feel that I'm degenerating into a mechanical way of thinking, thus ultimately missing the point of the music. This isn't to say that I denounce the practice of ranking music, since I myself engage in it on occasion. Just saying that it isn't for everyone.
I understand your sentiments. I don't think any artist has polarized opinion as much as Wagner. Many have drowned themselves in worship of Wagner (as I have!) for the reasons I've listed in my post above, but many people have found his aesthetic to be very repulsive and immoral for those same reasons.
"The plastic energy of Wagner's fancy, his astonishing mastery over the technique of the orchestra, and numerous musical beauties reign in the Nibelungen with a magical power to which we willingly and thankfully yield ourselves captive. These single beauties that creep, as it were, behind the back of the system do not prevent this system, the tyranny of the word, of unmelodious dialogue, from planting in the whole the seeds of death." - Eduard Hanslick
"...something of Milton's Fallen Spirit surrounds Wagner with a strange mixture of attraction and repulsion. Among the gods of his native heaven he might have been great, and in that which is now his own place he lifts himself in Titanic grandeur. But let us not forget he is powerful chiefly for evil." - Joseph Bennett
"I admire Wagner's inventiveness, but I see his lack of architectural structure as decadence. Moreover, to me his musical personality is indescribably offensive so that for the most part I can listen to him only with disgust." - Albert Einstein
His music did not seek to embrace humanity in the sense that others like Bach or Beethoven did. Nor is there really anything graceful or dignified about it either. Wagner's aesthetic comes off as a power thrust, a blunt and forceful will to conquer everything in its path - a rare phenomenon in the realm of art. His music seizes upon our deepest impulses, but, depending on one's perspective, it can often seem hideous. Perhaps that says more about humans in general than it does about Wagner. I don't know. At any rate, whether you love him or hate, his genius cannot be denied. Wagner is one of the most powerful artistic personalities this world has ever witnessed and his impact on history is unshakable. And, for better or for worse, the Earth probably will never see the likes of him again.
As for the "unevenness" of the Ring. Perhaps the less exciting sections were meant to build up anticipation for the more exciting ones. And perhaps those less eventful sections serve as relief from the moments of extreme intensity. And though it may come off as "uneven", maybe it was his way of balancing the work out. When we talk about Der Ring des Nibelungen, we're talking about a 14 hour long work. To expect it to be 14 hours of unrelenting dramatic intensity may not be for the better for it may wear the listener out.
Thanks, I can certainly understand where you're coming from.
Thanks for the brief rundown of what could make it on your list if you extended it. Would be great to see Verdi's Requiem and Shostakovich's 15th added. They each deserve to be on a (very) short list in my book. Shostakovich's 15th, while loved by some, is vastly underrated in general, even though (or because) it's among the most radical departures in symphonic history, and possibly the most fully realized, vividly detailed example of introspection in all of classical music. The profound depth and highly personalized, idiosynchratic nature of its evocations, introversion and self-reflection is probably unprecedented in classical music (especially symphonies), and perhaps only approached elsewhere in some of Beethoven's late works. And probably not approached anywhere in rock or jazz aside from Wyatt's Rock Bottom.
But yes, Wagner can be about as subtle as an elephant using the bathroom of a dollhouse. They each may share a similar level of conviction, though Wagner has much more, ahem, "professional" results :)
It's been a long time away from the "Ring" so I'm not totally sure where I'll rank/rate it. Been a long time for Tristan und Isolde too but it is definitely one of the towering masterpieces in all art, and most likely a 9.5, or maybe 9.6, on my scale.
Well, there's a bit too much enthusiasm round these parts for my liking (!) so I'll have to be a dissenting voice. I have failed to really cotton on to Wagner--a position, I understand, that is not uncommon. Georgejetson accurately points out the "elevation" that occurs in Wagner's music, and I think it's this other-worldly effect that is part of my problem. Wagner's theoretical and mythological bent makes everything he does so over the top, excessively dramatic, and portentous. There's no subtlety in his world (how can there be when The Ring draws on such material!), it's all so bombastic. It's obviously not Wagner's fault that his tunes were seized upon by Elmer Fudd and Coppola, but Ride of the Valkyries strikes me as among the most distasteful things I've come across in his oeuvre. There's no heart there, just a histrionic outpouring, albeit one controlled by an accomplished composer.
There is no denying that he is an extraordinary musical power, and there are passages in the Ring that strike me as really incredible (ie. the opening of Das Rheingold, the Funeral March in Götterdämmerung, etc) but there is an unevenness to his music that can make him difficult to sit through. Tristan und Isolde is much more accomplished, I think.
Honestly, the joy for me is in listening and the idea of taking the time to do precise rankings does not much interest me. I could say with some surety that I prefer Beethoven's Op. 111 to Dvorak's Ninth, but I can't call what's preferred between Aida and Tchaikovsky's Sixth, and going through an exercise of keeping score for the sake of it leaves me a little cold. The list is more of an imprecise log of what strikes me as particularly moving and accomplished than an attempt to carefully organize and understand my feelings about each piece in relation to each other. That said I, of course, enjoy reading other lists, discovering new works, and discussing art.
(My misgivings of the list's imprecision are at least mitigated by my awfully out of date, negligent, juvenile Favorite Paintings list..!)
Verdi's Requiem definitely has a very strong shot at making the list (I can't get enough of his music) and I listened to Shostakovich's 15th for the first time in ages last week, and couldn't figure out why I had been away from his music for so long . Very, very accomplished work. As for extending, pieces that have a shot at making the list include Strauss's Don Quixote, specific Preludes / Nocturnes by Chopin, more string work (Brahms's Op. 77, quartets by Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn, Beethoven's cello sonatas)... Maybe some of Schubert's sonatas and Unfinished Symphony, Turandot, Bach's The Art of Fugue... So much to hear... Such is life!...
Also it seems the agreement for best Wagnerian tenor/soprano teams, if you want to look for performers rather than conductors:
Pre-WWII: Flagstad + Melchior
Post-WWII: Nilsson + Windgassen.
Dido & Aeneas is just such a weirdly minimal understated piece, and yet it really expresses a lot. It's very internal, anxious almost.-- A very short character study of an opera, which is kind of rare, most operas following a more plot-centric than character-centric structure. Musically it really is just gorgeous in all fronts-- from the faux-horror-movie recitatives of the Sorceress, to the jaunty semi-omniscient choruses, angular dances, and lilting arias. Nothing really happens in it, and yet a whole lot happens beyond, behind, and within the outwardly static actions. It's all the more poignant because of the restraint of composition. Thinkinga bout it without context, everything in it seems so cartoonish and dopey, but whnever I actually take it as a whole, it's one of my favourite anythings.
(and for best performance of that: Christopher Hogwood's recording with Sarah Connolly in the lead role is my favourite (The visual/mise-en-scene direction of the Wayn McGregor production is top-notch also, except for this one really stupid decision for something at the very end...))
If you look at my "Greatest Opera Things" list, you'll see Dido & Aeneas in a whole lot of places.
You have such enthusiasm and valuable insights on art, it would be really cool to see you extend (and preferably even make an attempt to rate/rank?) these lists. Maybe this was taken up elsewhere, but have you ever considered it?
What about the "Let's make like a . . . " stuff.
Some I know . . . and a more extensive list on www.rusbasan.com:
...make like horse poo and hit the trail.
...make like a banana and split.
...make like a missile and cruise.
...make like a fetus and head out.
...make like a hockey player and get the puck out of here!
...make like diarrhea and run
...make like Houdini and disappear
...make like Michael Jackson and "Beat it!"
...make like Santa Claus and leave your presents (presence)!
His "Ring" would definitely be on my 8.8+ list (possibly 9.3+) ... it's a lot to consume so it won't be the first work(s) I take on - though maybe I'll do a part every few days or a week stretched out over a few weeks or a month or something. I'll be revisiting Tristan & Isolde first though (probably this week or next, probably 9.4-9.6 range).
Just checked out your "Favourite Classical Musics" list. I don't think I've heard your 9.9/10. Any words to describe it?
Oh, btw, I strongly recommend you don't see Gilliam's Brazil, especially The Final Cut! I recently rewatched it and it's not like it's as incredible as Escalator Over The Hill or anything.
(Also for Wagner recordings:
What I have heard from literally every opera singer is that the Bohm Bayreuth recordings of the Ring Cycle are the best over-all ones. Boulez's version is great too, I think, although a little brisk. Regardless, the entire thing is a crescendo building up to the funeral march and immolation (SPOILERS?!), getting better and better, and considering the "total-art-work" that Wagner wanted with the Ring Cycle, I'd suggest reading the libretto at least
Also if you'd like to actually see it, the recent Robert LePage Met productions are pretty grand)
Alas, the week ended Sunday. Poor me, it's hopeless... Oh! Such woe! I am but a forgotten tadpole in this vague, dreamy stream of consciousness we call living... :(
But wait! It's a new week! Maybe a better one even? :)
I do not know. But shooting in the dark, I think Vertigo will continue in the top, Roger Ebert said that there comes a time when voters tired of always vote in the same film, Kane is 50 years at the top, many people who voted for him have died, soon the new voters are younger people who definitely will vote in the films of the decade 60-70. Leaving the old ones without vote. Also the fact that Hitchcock is british magazine and always cherish the directors of his country. I think in the next two editions, Apocalypse Now will grow, as well as the latest movies, but I see Apocalypse Now as the major listed among the latest movies. The Godfather was away but I see still standing reputation. Perhaps the two films in the top 20 maybe. Apocalypse Now was also well regarded among the directors.
I also assume that: 2001 may soon challenge Kane and Vertigo. Rules of the Game can drop 6-8 maybe. Tokyo Story and Sunrise could be just moments, I think the latter may fall out. Overall it is. Vertigo is now the king, Kane does not think back to the top soon, same thing happen to AFI The Godfather will replace Kane, 2017 or 2027, but is likely.
But one of the reasons why I think Vertigo remain in the top is the amount of votes.
1982 to 1992 he was on the rise but not a threat to Kane. In 2002 he came in dethroning 2 Rules of Game and The Godfather. 45 votes against 41. It was expected that this list he overcame equaled or Kane, but he was not exceeded by 5-10 votes were 34 votes, and a rise like the Vertigo, now that will not stop. Again kicking in the dark: I think 2022 will look like this:
1.Vertigem - 285 votes
2.Kane - 236 votes
Ok, so it isn't the art of his Ring itself, but rather his manner of which he expresses it that you dislike. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Sorry for the confusion, but when you threw around words like "pompous", "posturing" & "so histrionic and dry" I was getting the impression that you thought his Ring was an entirely self-serving and pretentious work of art (since art appreciation is subjective, I wouldn't object to your right to say that... though I definitely wouldn't agree with you!). As for the philosophical implications of his libretto. Let me just state that I evaluate music on purely musical grounds. No matter how involved or intertwined a written text maybe with a certain work of music, I still consider them distinctly separate realms of art. I realize how much this runs contrary to Wagner's principle of Gesamtkunstwerk. Oh well. I guess I'm not a true Wagnerite after all!
B-b-but I did not say anything about masking artistic depth, or sincerity, or any resemblance of such a statement. I said the manner, the style, the actual sounds that I hear are what I often find problematic, not the creative energy at work. The endless monumental tilt gets dull. Furthermore, I did not mention psychology (a dubious barometer for any artwork in any case, it would be asinine to dismiss The Illiad on such grounds). The dull philosophical (not, let me reiterate, sonic) writing is the only non-musical criticism I made, and it is based on the libretto (admittedly I have only seen the first three installments so the final ones may be different). Let me lastly, perhaps pedantocally, affirm that I am making no accusations, but simply personal observations. I accept Wagner was brilliant without a doubt--Tristan und Isolde is a favorite--but after spending some time with The Ring I've found it is not, as a whole, suited to my taste, although I think it hosts some very successful parts (I failed to mention the Immolation earlier and a good number of instrumental passages).
I initially thought you were alluding to a certain "monstrousness" in his aesthetic that many people find repellent. Though I'm not sure if I'd agree, there is an argument for this stance. Now I see you're just describing how overwrought, pompous and distasteful you find his Ring and in this case I simply cannot relate to you. The Ring may be intoxicatingly grandiose in nature, but none of it strikes me as histrionic. Nor do I feel that any of it is some sort of hollow facade to disguise some sort of lack of artistic sincerity and depth and that this music was, for the most part, self-glorifying. You accuse Wagner of philosophical posturing yet I find nothing pretentious about his Ring for it is endless in psychological depth - Wagner, along with Schopenhauer, has even been described by many scholars to be a precursor to Sigmond Frued. Bryan Magee writes "Wagner knew he was making the orchestra express the world of primitive, unbridled inchoate feeling below the level of conscious awareness." Friedrich Nietzsche writes "He knows of a chord which expresses those secret and weird midnight hours of the soul, when cause and effect seem to have fallen asunder." David Duball writes "Wagner brought the voice, in combination with the orchestra, to an undreamed-of height of expression. In merging his musical being with the timeless power of myth, Wagner tapped into repressed and unconscious aspects of the psyche. He felt no surprise that his music had the power to unhinge mentally unstable people, touching an exposed nerve." None of these descriptions gives one the impression of a composer who merely creates music with philosophical and psychological leanings as a way to draw attention to himself. However, the intensity and grandiloquence of the ring, for which you personally find off-putting, cannot be denied. But if you're put off by these qualities then, at this point, I think we can safely say it's just a matter of taste and that the Ring simply isn't for you.
You've misunderstood me completely. When I say The Ring is uneven I am not referring to dramatic intensity or narrative events. To cite the already given example of The Ride of the Valkyries--such a section has no lack of intensity or narrative thrust but it strikes me as completely overwrought and pompous. The problem for me is The Ring is inconsistently engaging (It, personally, contradicts what Henry James wrote of as the only reasonable expectation we can have of art: that it be interesting). Regardless of the enormous artistic power at work many passages fail to cast any sort of hold on me. They can be so histrionic and dry. The manner of the music is the issue. So, to the contrary, I think less intense, less bombast, less philosophical posturing and grandiloquence may appeal to me more. But, of course, then it would no longer be The Ring.
I completely sympathize with the difficulties involved with sustaining an epic, even Milton struggled, but at the end of the day I receive great pleasure from only some of the music.
You may enjoy reading George Bernard Shaw's The Perfect Wagnerite. I found it amusing... It's clear there was a falling off in his critical facilities. Despite a distaste for Brahms his very early writing on music he was remarkably perceptive. I can't find it now, but his reading of "To be or not to be" is a particularly enjoyable attack on musicologists.
How would you rate MBV? (and which two tracks do you mean by "top-notch lullaby-noise-rock tracks? The opener and the closer only?)
I can relate to your experience. There is a clear gap in my appreciation of Bartók's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta and his 2nd violin concerto, but when I get down to specifics the lines begin to blur. And the more I focus on trying to define those lines the more I feel that I'm degenerating into a mechanical way of thinking, thus ultimately missing the point of the music. This isn't to say that I denounce the practice of ranking music, since I myself engage in it on occasion. Just saying that it isn't for everyone.
I understand your sentiments. I don't think any artist has polarized opinion as much as Wagner. Many have drowned themselves in worship of Wagner (as I have!) for the reasons I've listed in my post above, but many people have found his aesthetic to be very repulsive and immoral for those same reasons.
"The plastic energy of Wagner's fancy, his astonishing mastery over the technique of the orchestra, and numerous musical beauties reign in the Nibelungen with a magical power to which we willingly and thankfully yield ourselves captive. These single beauties that creep, as it were, behind the back of the system do not prevent this system, the tyranny of the word, of unmelodious dialogue, from planting in the whole the seeds of death." - Eduard Hanslick
"...something of Milton's Fallen Spirit surrounds Wagner with a strange mixture of attraction and repulsion. Among the gods of his native heaven he might have been great, and in that which is now his own place he lifts himself in Titanic grandeur. But let us not forget he is powerful chiefly for evil." - Joseph Bennett
"I admire Wagner's inventiveness, but I see his lack of architectural structure as decadence. Moreover, to me his musical personality is indescribably offensive so that for the most part I can listen to him only with disgust." - Albert Einstein
His music did not seek to embrace humanity in the sense that others like Bach or Beethoven did. Nor is there really anything graceful or dignified about it either. Wagner's aesthetic comes off as a power thrust, a blunt and forceful will to conquer everything in its path - a rare phenomenon in the realm of art. His music seizes upon our deepest impulses, but, depending on one's perspective, it can often seem hideous. Perhaps that says more about humans in general than it does about Wagner. I don't know. At any rate, whether you love him or hate, his genius cannot be denied. Wagner is one of the most powerful artistic personalities this world has ever witnessed and his impact on history is unshakable. And, for better or for worse, the Earth probably will never see the likes of him again.
As for the "unevenness" of the Ring. Perhaps the less exciting sections were meant to build up anticipation for the more exciting ones. And perhaps those less eventful sections serve as relief from the moments of extreme intensity. And though it may come off as "uneven", maybe it was his way of balancing the work out. When we talk about Der Ring des Nibelungen, we're talking about a 14 hour long work. To expect it to be 14 hours of unrelenting dramatic intensity may not be for the better for it may wear the listener out.
Thanks, I can certainly understand where you're coming from.
Thanks for the brief rundown of what could make it on your list if you extended it. Would be great to see Verdi's Requiem and Shostakovich's 15th added. They each deserve to be on a (very) short list in my book. Shostakovich's 15th, while loved by some, is vastly underrated in general, even though (or because) it's among the most radical departures in symphonic history, and possibly the most fully realized, vividly detailed example of introspection in all of classical music. The profound depth and highly personalized, idiosynchratic nature of its evocations, introversion and self-reflection is probably unprecedented in classical music (especially symphonies), and perhaps only approached elsewhere in some of Beethoven's late works. And probably not approached anywhere in rock or jazz aside from Wyatt's Rock Bottom.
Be gone for ye have sinned! :)
But yes, Wagner can be about as subtle as an elephant using the bathroom of a dollhouse. They each may share a similar level of conviction, though Wagner has much more, ahem, "professional" results :)
It's been a long time away from the "Ring" so I'm not totally sure where I'll rank/rate it. Been a long time for Tristan und Isolde too but it is definitely one of the towering masterpieces in all art, and most likely a 9.5, or maybe 9.6, on my scale.
Well, there's a bit too much enthusiasm round these parts for my liking (!) so I'll have to be a dissenting voice. I have failed to really cotton on to Wagner--a position, I understand, that is not uncommon. Georgejetson accurately points out the "elevation" that occurs in Wagner's music, and I think it's this other-worldly effect that is part of my problem. Wagner's theoretical and mythological bent makes everything he does so over the top, excessively dramatic, and portentous. There's no subtlety in his world (how can there be when The Ring draws on such material!), it's all so bombastic. It's obviously not Wagner's fault that his tunes were seized upon by Elmer Fudd and Coppola, but Ride of the Valkyries strikes me as among the most distasteful things I've come across in his oeuvre. There's no heart there, just a histrionic outpouring, albeit one controlled by an accomplished composer.
There is no denying that he is an extraordinary musical power, and there are passages in the Ring that strike me as really incredible (ie. the opening of Das Rheingold, the Funeral March in Götterdämmerung, etc) but there is an unevenness to his music that can make him difficult to sit through. Tristan und Isolde is much more accomplished, I think.
(I listen to Furtwangler's performance)
Thanks for the kind words.
Honestly, the joy for me is in listening and the idea of taking the time to do precise rankings does not much interest me. I could say with some surety that I prefer Beethoven's Op. 111 to Dvorak's Ninth, but I can't call what's preferred between Aida and Tchaikovsky's Sixth, and going through an exercise of keeping score for the sake of it leaves me a little cold. The list is more of an imprecise log of what strikes me as particularly moving and accomplished than an attempt to carefully organize and understand my feelings about each piece in relation to each other. That said I, of course, enjoy reading other lists, discovering new works, and discussing art.
(My misgivings of the list's imprecision are at least mitigated by my awfully out of date, negligent, juvenile Favorite Paintings list..!)
Verdi's Requiem definitely has a very strong shot at making the list (I can't get enough of his music) and I listened to Shostakovich's 15th for the first time in ages last week, and couldn't figure out why I had been away from his music for so long . Very, very accomplished work. As for extending, pieces that have a shot at making the list include Strauss's Don Quixote, specific Preludes / Nocturnes by Chopin, more string work (Brahms's Op. 77, quartets by Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn, Beethoven's cello sonatas)... Maybe some of Schubert's sonatas and Unfinished Symphony, Turandot, Bach's The Art of Fugue... So much to hear... Such is life!...
Great description, sounds really interesting.
Lol re "Ssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhh" :)
Have you heard Machaut's Messe de Nostre Dame?
Also it seems the agreement for best Wagnerian tenor/soprano teams, if you want to look for performers rather than conductors:
Pre-WWII: Flagstad + Melchior
Post-WWII: Nilsson + Windgassen.
Dido & Aeneas is just such a weirdly minimal understated piece, and yet it really expresses a lot. It's very internal, anxious almost.-- A very short character study of an opera, which is kind of rare, most operas following a more plot-centric than character-centric structure. Musically it really is just gorgeous in all fronts-- from the faux-horror-movie recitatives of the Sorceress, to the jaunty semi-omniscient choruses, angular dances, and lilting arias. Nothing really happens in it, and yet a whole lot happens beyond, behind, and within the outwardly static actions. It's all the more poignant because of the restraint of composition. Thinkinga bout it without context, everything in it seems so cartoonish and dopey, but whnever I actually take it as a whole, it's one of my favourite anythings.
(and for best performance of that: Christopher Hogwood's recording with Sarah Connolly in the lead role is my favourite (The visual/mise-en-scene direction of the Wayn McGregor production is top-notch also, except for this one really stupid decision for something at the very end...))
If you look at my "Greatest Opera Things" list, you'll see Dido & Aeneas in a whole lot of places.
OH, BY THE WAY:
Ssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
You have such enthusiasm and valuable insights on art, it would be really cool to see you extend (and preferably even make an attempt to rate/rank?) these lists. Maybe this was taken up elsewhere, but have you ever considered it?
What about the "Let's make like a . . . " stuff.
Some I know . . . and a more extensive list on www.rusbasan.com:
...make like horse poo and hit the trail.
...make like a banana and split.
...make like a missile and cruise.
...make like a fetus and head out.
...make like a hockey player and get the puck out of here!
...make like diarrhea and run
...make like Houdini and disappear
...make like Michael Jackson and "Beat it!"
...make like Santa Claus and leave your presents (presence)!
Verdi's Requiem & Shostakovich's 15th. Sentence.
His "Ring" would definitely be on my 8.8+ list (possibly 9.3+) ... it's a lot to consume so it won't be the first work(s) I take on - though maybe I'll do a part every few days or a week stretched out over a few weeks or a month or something. I'll be revisiting Tristan & Isolde first though (probably this week or next, probably 9.4-9.6 range).
Awesome, Zacharyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, thanks :)
Just checked out your "Favourite Classical Musics" list. I don't think I've heard your 9.9/10. Any words to describe it?
Oh, btw, I strongly recommend you don't see Gilliam's Brazil, especially The Final Cut! I recently rewatched it and it's not like it's as incredible as Escalator Over The Hill or anything.
;)
SO EXCITED ABOUT CHORAL MUSIC :3c
(Also for Wagner recordings:
What I have heard from literally every opera singer is that the Bohm Bayreuth recordings of the Ring Cycle are the best over-all ones. Boulez's version is great too, I think, although a little brisk. Regardless, the entire thing is a crescendo building up to the funeral march and immolation (SPOILERS?!), getting better and better, and considering the "total-art-work" that Wagner wanted with the Ring Cycle, I'd suggest reading the libretto at least
Also if you'd like to actually see it, the recent Robert LePage Met productions are pretty grand)
Whoa! Maybe I should re-listen to it soon? :)
Alas, the week ended Sunday. Poor me, it's hopeless... Oh! Such woe! I am but a forgotten tadpole in this vague, dreamy stream of consciousness we call living... :(
But wait! It's a new week! Maybe a better one even? :)
Top it off with some Wagner and you'll be all set!